ECJ 10 March 2011, case C-109/09 (Deutsche Lufthansa AG – v – Gertraud Kumpan), Fixed-term work

Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of “a close objective connection with a previous employment contract of indefinite duration concluded with the same employer” in Paragraph 14(3) TzBfG must also be applied to situations in which a fixed-term contract has not been preceded less than six months previously by an indefinite contract, where the initial employment relationship continued for the same activity by means of an uninterrupted succession of fixedterm contracts.

2011/46 Numerous fixed-term contracts: difference between ‘continuous’ and ‘successive’ employment (IR)

Under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Labour Court was required to determine whether a former employee of the Irish Civil Service (Mr Beary), who had numerous fixed-term contracts between 2002 and 2008, was entitled to a permanent contract of employment.  

The Court also addressed an issue which arose as to whether Ireland had complied with its obligations in implementing Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC. The issue arose because the objective of Clause 5 is to combat the abuse of ‘successive’ fixed-term contracts, whereas the 2003 Act is directed at preventing the unlimited use of ‘continuous’ fixed-term contracts. 

The Labour Court determined that there was incompatibility between the Framework Agreement and the 2003 Act because although “all periods of employment which are continuous are necessarily successive, not all employment which is successive is necessarily continuous”. The Court concluded that while the former employee had become entitled to a permanent contract, there were objective grounds for not giving the contract.

2011/46 Numerous fixed-term contracts: difference between ‘continuous’ and ‘successive’ employment (IR)

Under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Labour Court was required to determine whether a former employee of the Irish Civil Service (Mr Beary), who had numerous fixed-term contracts between 2002 and 2008, was entitled to a permanent contract of employment.  

The Court also addressed an issue which arose as to whether Ireland had complied with its obligations in implementing Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC. The issue arose because the objective of Clause 5 is to combat the abuse of ‘successive’ fixed-term contracts, whereas the 2003 Act is directed at preventing the unlimited use of ‘continuous’ fixed-term contracts. 

The Labour Court determined that there was incompatibility between the Framework Agreement and the 2003 Act because although “all periods of employment which are continuous are necessarily successive, not all employment which is successive is necessarily continuous”. The Court concluded that while the former employee had become entitled to a permanent contract, there were objective grounds for not giving the contract.

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

2011/26 Nine fixed-term contracts: no abuse (IR)

An employee was given two consecutive fixed-term contracts, lasting a total of almost one year. Then, after a break of about four months, she was given seven consecutive fixed-term contracts lasting a total of 3   years. Irish law allows “continuous” fixed-term employment up to a maximum of four years. It was therefore relevant whether the second series of seven contracts constituted a continuation of the initial series of two contracts. This was not the case, but the employer was nevertheless ordered to pay  5,000 for failure to specify the reason why the ninth contract was not permanent.

2011/26 Nine fixed-term contracts: no abuse (IR)

An employee was given two consecutive fixed-term contracts, lasting a total of almost one year. Then, after a break of about four months, she was given seven consecutive fixed-term contracts lasting a total of 3   years. Irish law allows “continuous” fixed-term employment up to a maximum of four years. It was therefore relevant whether the second series of seven contracts constituted a continuation of the initial series of two contracts. This was not the case, but the employer was nevertheless ordered to pay  5,000 for failure to specify the reason why the ninth contract was not permanent.

ECJ 22 December 2010, cases C-444/09 and C-459/09 (Gavieiro), Fixed-term work

Interim civil servants fall within the scope of Directive 1999/70, which covers length-of-service increments. The lack of a reference to the Directive in domestic law does not preclude that law from constituting a measure of transposition. Clause 4 of the Directive is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to rely on it in the period from the transposition deadline, with retroactive effect.

ECJ 22 December 2010, cases C-444/09 and C-459/09 (Gavieiro), Fixed-term work

Interim civil servants fall within the scope of Directive 1999/70, which covers length-of-service increments. The lack of a reference to the Directive in domestic law does not preclude that law from constituting a measure of transposition. Clause 4 of the Directive is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to rely on it in the period from the transposition deadline, with retroactive effect.

2011/8:Cost is not a factor justifying different treatment of fixedterm employees with respect to redundancy package (IR)

The Labour Court was initially required to determine whether an employee with a fixed-term contract should be deemed permanent. It was deemed that she was not entitled to a contract of indefinite duration. In a subsequent case, the Labour Court was required to consider, inter alia, whether this now former fixed-term employee was entitled to the same redundancy package offered to permanent staff of the employing University. The Court believed that the University was not objectively justified in its difference in treatment between the former employee and her comparators, and awarded her a redundancy payment comparable to permanent employees.